Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #160827 > unrolled thread

Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY")

Started byQuadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
First post2016-03-10 15:55 -0800
Last post2016-03-18 14:28 -0600
Articles 20 on this page of 262 — 43 participants

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-10 15:55 -0800
    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") The New Other Guy <Newsgnus@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 21:39 -0800
      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 06:32 +0000
        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-11 09:24 +0100
          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 17:18 +0000
            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-11 16:17 -0600
            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-12 18:41 +0100
            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 18:14 -0800
              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-12 20:39 -0600
                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 19:27 -0800
                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-13 09:04 -0600
                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-13 12:58 -0500
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:25 -0700
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 14:45 -0700
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 18:12 -0500
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-15 17:30 +0000
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:31 -0700
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:28 -0700
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 13:29 +1100
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-03-15 22:45 -0500
                                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:29 +1100
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-16 09:27 +0000
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 14:33 +0100
                                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-16 09:47 -0500
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 20:02 -0400
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 09:57 +0100
                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 11:58 -0700
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-14 19:07 +0000
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-14 20:24 +0000
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 19:59 -0400
      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 06:18 -0500
      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bud Frede <frede@mouse-potato.com> - 2016-03-11 06:24 -0500
        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 17:18 +0000
          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-11 17:38 +0000
          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-11 13:48 -0600
          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 19:12 -0500
            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-03-12 02:20 +0100
            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-11 18:02 -0800
              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 03:09 -0500
                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-12 09:20 -0800
                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 15:53 -0500
            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-12 16:27 -0800
              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 19:13 -0800
              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 22:30 -0500
                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-13 11:33 -0700
                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-13 13:46 -0600
                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 17:41 -0400
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-13 18:13 -0600
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 11:29 +1100
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 08:51 +0000
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 22:00 -0400
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-14 00:20 -0600
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") David Wade <dave.g4ugm@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 08:54 +0000
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 07:12 -0400
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:31 -0700
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 23:50 +0100
                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:29 -0700
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Alfred Falk <falk@arc.ab.ca> - 2016-03-14 20:13 +0000
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-15 17:30 +0000
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 18:36 +0000
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-15 17:53 -0300
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 19:55 -0400
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2016-03-15 22:10 -0400
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-15 22:58 -0500
                                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-15 21:51 -0700
                                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:33 +1100
                                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") Stan Barr <plan.b@bluesomatic.org> - 2016-03-16 08:21 +0000
                                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 19:29 +1100
                                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-16 08:57 +0000
                                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 11:15 +0100
                                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-16 07:14 -0700
                                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 17:22 +0100
                                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 20:05 -0400
                                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-17 08:02 +0100
                                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 06:51 -0700
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-16 02:18 -0300
                                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:34 +1100
                                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 13:05 +0000
                                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-16 06:51 -0700
                                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 16:16 +0000
                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-13 23:00 +0100
                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-13 19:52 -0500
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 13:43 +0100
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-14 14:15 -0500
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-15 05:58 +0000
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 10:03 +0100
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 13:23 +0000
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-15 13:44 +0000
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 08:12 -0700
                                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 09:36 -0700
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-15 10:52 +0000
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 13:27 +0000
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-15 13:43 +0000
                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:27 -0700
                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-14 19:52 +0000
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 00:37 +0100
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 13:14 +0000
                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-14 12:53 -0700
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 16:23 -0500
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-14 17:17 -0700
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-14 20:03 -0500
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-14 19:31 -0700
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-14 22:15 -0700
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 09:43 +0100
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 16:11 -0500
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 14:56 -0700
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 17:18 -0500
                                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 15:49 -0700
                                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 16:07 -0700
                                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 09:44 -0700
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:22 -0700
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 18:12 -0700
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 11:52 -0500
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 11:42 -0500
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Sam Crean" <sg55443@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 08:37 +1100
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 18:08 -0500
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 01:18 +0100
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 21:53 -0400
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:16 -0700
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 22:23 -0400
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 16:25 +1100
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 13:08 +0000
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-16 14:36 +0100
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-16 14:40 +0000
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Andrew Swallow <am.swallow@btinternet.com> - 2016-03-16 14:36 +0000
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 14:40 +0000
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:22 +1100
                                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-16 15:35 -0600
                                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") pechter@cobalt.pechter.dyndns.org (William Pechter) - 2016-03-16 21:04 +0000
                                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "hanja" <hanja228@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 08:56 +1100
                                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-16 17:09 -0600
                                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "hanja" <hanja228@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 11:57 +1100
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:18 +1100
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Jim Bank" <jb410@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 13:25 +1100
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 23:32 -0400
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 03:53 +0000
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-16 02:33 -0300
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 16:16 +0000
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-03-17 03:31 -0300
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase  "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-17 07:28 +0000
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-16 13:02 +0000
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:15 +1100
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-17 13:17 +0000
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-17 16:08 +0000
                                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-18 12:45 +0000
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:33 +1100
                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reisrad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 23:18 +0100
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 16:23 -0500
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 17:39 -0500
                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 11:44 -0700
                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 19:55 -0400
                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:35 -0700
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-15 18:30 -0700
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 12:14 -0500
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 11:24 -0700
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 12:08 -0500
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 10:46 -0700
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-16 20:36 -0500
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-16 19:16 -0700
          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-11 16:37 -0800
          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-12 18:59 -0800
            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-13 12:10 +0000
              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 11:49 -0700
                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-14 20:15 +0000
                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 21:35 +0100
        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-11 13:43 -0600
      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-03-12 11:30 -0500
    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Anne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com> - 2016-03-11 12:04 -0800
      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-11 22:05 +0000
        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-12 13:34 +0000
          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-12 18:07 +0000
            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-13 14:12 +0000
          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-14 19:47 +0000
            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-15 13:43 +0000
              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-15 19:00 +0000
                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-16 13:02 +0000
                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 07:13 +1100
                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-17 13:17 +0000
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-17 17:54 +0000
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-18 12:45 +0000
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-19 09:09 +1100
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-18 23:47 +0000
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-19 02:03 +0000
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-19 13:23 +0000
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-22 07:19 +0000
                                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-22 13:40 +0000
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:37 +1100
                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-17 17:55 +0000
                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-18 12:45 +0000
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-18 23:48 +0000
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-19 13:23 +0000
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-22 07:19 +0000
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-22 13:40 +0000
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-26 07:31 +0000
                                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-26 13:24 +0000
                                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-04-15 08:33 +0000
                                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-04-15 12:18 +0000
    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") usenet@only.tnx (Questor) - 2016-03-14 00:25 +0000
      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-13 18:00 -0700
        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-15 17:10 -0500
      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-03-14 13:30 -0400
        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 18:57 +0100
          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-14 18:03 +0000
            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-14 18:54 +0000
              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-14 13:09 -0700
                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 16:01 -0500
            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 21:23 +0100
              Re: You count as an old-timer if Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-03-14 19:05 -0600
                Re: You count as an old-timer if Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-15 10:07 +0100
          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:39 -0700
          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2016-03-15 19:57 -0400
            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 03:53 +0000
              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-03-21 20:28 -0400
                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-22 01:41 +0000
                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Martin <bob.martin@excite.com> - 2016-03-22 07:26 +0000
                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-03-22 07:18 -0600
                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2016-03-22 09:39 -0700
                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2016-03-22 23:12 -0500
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-03-23 11:19 +0000
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-23 05:00 -0700
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-23 12:09 +0000
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") tracymnelson@gmail.com - 2016-03-23 07:20 -0700
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-23 13:57 -0500
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Ibmekon <Ibmekon> - 2016-03-23 20:07 +0000
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-04-11 17:03 -0400
        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Charles Richmond" <numerist@aquaporin4.com> - 2016-03-14 16:59 -0500
          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2016-03-14 17:57 -0500
      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-14 18:53 +0000
        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-14 12:49 -0700
          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-14 19:55 -0400
            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-15 07:13 -0700
              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 08:12 -0700
                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 12:11 -0400
                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-15 17:30 +0000
                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 14:44 -0400
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-15 19:36 +0000
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-15 17:25 -0700
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 18:12 -0700
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-16 08:01 +0000
                        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-15 23:17 -0400
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 03:53 +0000
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 11:17 -0400
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 16:16 +0000
                                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 14:34 -0400
                          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 13:01 +0000
                            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 11:26 -0400
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-16 16:03 +0000
                                Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> - 2016-03-16 14:28 -0400
                                  Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-03-16 19:00 +0000
                                    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Bob Eager <news0006@eager.cx> - 2016-03-16 21:18 +0000
                              Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-03-16 20:49 +0000
                      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-03-15 17:42 -0700
        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-14 21:40 +0100
    Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-03-16 21:09 -0500
      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-03-17 08:04 +0100
      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2016-03-17 13:17 +0000
        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:40 +1100
      Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-17 14:28 -0700
        Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") mausg@mail.com - 2016-03-18 12:43 +0000
          Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-03-18 10:23 -0700
            Re: You count as an old-timer if (was Re: Origin of the phrase "XYZZY") scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2016-03-18 18:51 +0000
        Re: You count as an old-timer if Lawrence Statton NK1G <lawrence@senguio.mx> - 2016-03-18 14:28 -0600

Page 5 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 14  Next page →

#160934

FromMorten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid>
Date2016-03-13 23:00 +0100
Message-ID<kh4hrc-bs4.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>
In reply to#160931
In article <c13056c8-6ae2-4bbf-b519-d27a458c286e@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc  <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:31:00 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Bear in mind that OS/360, bloated thoough it might have seemed, ran fine 
>> on machines that today would be considered underpowered in a good watch 
>> today.
>
>I thought that even today, plenty of good watches don't even _have_ computers 
>in them. Even the ones with quartz crystals just need a frequency divider chip 
>to drive the little motor.

My take on the retrocomputing scene are about not letting the good
ideas get lost. The hardware side has mostly kept up all the ideas that
were worth keeping, but we have lost, or nearly lost, a lot of ideas 
on the software side. There are still stuff from Multics, Tops20 and
even CTSS that aren't in the computer mainstream; even though we would
benefit greatly from some of them.

>Now, they do have these newfangled things like smartwatches, and, yes, most of 
>them would have chips more powerful than any 360, save, possibly, the /195.

The smartphones of today are at supercomputer levels of performance
related to the early 1980s. The odroid/hardkernel and raspberrypis are
releases of somewhat open versions of the SOCs that run these phones.

A raspberrypi-3 has a clock speed of 1.2GHz, 4 processors, a memory bus speed
of several hundred Mhz. The ordoid xu4 has 4x2Ghz + 4x1.4GHz processors, 
2G ram, a memory bus of 800 Mhz. This would probably outperform a cray1.

Even a mere arduino, the significantly smaller than a matchbox size
computer that runs at 50mA @ 5V; or less than a quarter of a watt. This
has 32k flash, 2k ram+ 1k eeprom. And runs at 16Mhz. This is like a pdp8, 
only lots faster and a _lot_ less power hungry.

However, with the software we are not quite so fortunate. The Linux and
BSDs have been doing a tremendous job in preserving the good ideas, but they
are pretty alone. The mainstream, windows, apple, google etc. are on their
own power trips. They do adapt what they choose from the *n*x sides
but not systematically.

Just a simple thing. I still miss enq-deq from tops20. This would
be a stellar tool for wide multiprocessing on 100+ processors.

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160938

FromStephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org>
Date2016-03-13 19:52 -0500
Message-ID<nc51r8$lrp$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#160934
On 13-Mar-16 17:00, Morten Reistad wrote:
> Just a simple thing. I still miss enq-deq from tops20. This would be
> a stellar tool for wide multiprocessing on 100+ processors.

I googled "enq deq tops20", and the first hit sounds almost identical to
what POSIX's lockf() does.  What's missing?

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160945

FromMorten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid>
Date2016-03-14 13:43 +0100
Message-ID<l8oirc-ds5.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>
In reply to#160938
In article <nc51r8$lrp$1@dont-email.me>,
Stephen Sprunk  <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>On 13-Mar-16 17:00, Morten Reistad wrote:
>> Just a simple thing. I still miss enq-deq from tops20. This would be
>> a stellar tool for wide multiprocessing on 100+ processors.
>
>I googled "enq deq tops20", and the first hit sounds almost identical to
>what POSIX's lockf() does.  What's missing?

It is a general mechanism that does message passing. This can be
used to pass pages (mapped from one process to another, very 
efficiently), do locking, pass text strings, and you could quite
easily build the *n*x pipes on top of it. It is also a proper
queue.

However, it is not bound to the child/parent dictonomy of *n*x, 
it can also hang on a file handle. 

*n*x has something a lot lamer in the file pipes. Similar, but
a lot lamer. With Enq-Dec you can get errors if there are no
listeners, it is full duplex, and you can route the messages up
to a point. (Later versions even made this work over the network).

You could also build the qnx primitives on top of this easily.

It wouldn't be too hard to implement this in a bsd/linux kernel
either.

Look for it in the tops20 monitor calls manual for a terse
but complete description.

Otherwise I miss the full multics acls, also on pipes and sockets.

The mmap stuff is generally complete now. And the rest of the
file system. zfs is good, as is ext4; for different purposes.
The BSDs lack something like ext4 though.

And I miss comnd%. There should be some general mechanism that
either presented a graphical menu system or a command line comnd%
interface with the same API. 

We have one with Kermit, but that one is bogged down in weird licensing, though.


-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160955

FromStephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org>
Date2016-03-14 14:15 -0500
Message-ID<nc72ff$aet$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#160945
On 14-Mar-16 07:43, Morten Reistad wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> On 13-Mar-16 17:00, Morten Reistad wrote:
>>> Just a simple thing. I still miss enq-deq from tops20. This
>>> would be a stellar tool for wide multiprocessing on 100+
>>> processors.
>> 
>> I googled "enq deq tops20", and the first hit sounds almost
>> identical to what POSIX's lockf() does.  What's missing?
> 
> It is a general mechanism that does message passing. This can be
> used to pass pages (mapped from one process to another, very
> efficiently), do locking, pass text strings, and you could quite
> easily build the *n*x pipes on top of it. It is also a proper queue.
> ...
> Look for it in the tops20 monitor calls manual for a terse but
> complete description.

That's where I'm looking:
http://www.bourguet.org/v2/pdp10/jsys-user/chap6

I don't see _anything_ there about message passing; it's all about
advisory locking of resources, and the example given is a file.  With a
little bit of search-and-replace, this could easily be documentation for
POSIX's lockf() function.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160996

Fromusenet@only.tnx (Questor)
Date2016-03-15 05:58 +0000
Message-ID<56e7a467.9392215@nntp2.rawbw.com>
In reply to#160955
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:15:51 -0500, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>On 14-Mar-16 07:43, Morten Reistad wrote:
>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>> On 13-Mar-16 17:00, Morten Reistad wrote:
>>>> Just a simple thing. I still miss enq-deq from tops20. This
>>>> would be a stellar tool for wide multiprocessing on 100+
>>>> processors.
>>> 
>>> I googled "enq deq tops20", and the first hit sounds almost
>>> identical to what POSIX's lockf() does.  What's missing?
>> 
>> It is a general mechanism that does message passing. This can be
>> used to pass pages (mapped from one process to another, very
>> efficiently), do locking, pass text strings, and you could quite
>> easily build the *n*x pipes on top of it. It is also a proper queue.
>> ...
>> Look for it in the tops20 monitor calls manual for a terse but
>> complete description.
>
>That's where I'm looking:
>http://www.bourguet.org/v2/pdp10/jsys-user/chap6
>
>I don't see _anything_ there about message passing; it's all about
>advisory locking of resources, and the example given is a file.  With a
>little bit of search-and-replace, this could easily be documentation for
>POSIX's lockf() function.

ENQ/DEQ are TOPS20 system calls for implementing queues.  I think Morton was
conflating it with IPCF (inter-process communication facility), which is very
efficient in that it "moves" data between processes by simply changing their
respective page maps.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160997

FromMorten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid>
Date2016-03-15 10:03 +0100
Message-ID<6ovkrc-6f8.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>
In reply to#160996
In article <56e7a467.9392215@nntp2.rawbw.com>, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:15:51 -0500, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>On 14-Mar-16 07:43, Morten Reistad wrote:
>>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>> On 13-Mar-16 17:00, Morten Reistad wrote:
>>>>> Just a simple thing. I still miss enq-deq from tops20. This
>>>>> would be a stellar tool for wide multiprocessing on 100+
>>>>> processors.
>>>> 
>>>> I googled "enq deq tops20", and the first hit sounds almost
>>>> identical to what POSIX's lockf() does.  What's missing?
>>> 
>>> It is a general mechanism that does message passing. This can be
>>> used to pass pages (mapped from one process to another, very
>>> efficiently), do locking, pass text strings, and you could quite
>>> easily build the *n*x pipes on top of it. It is also a proper queue.
>>> ...
>>> Look for it in the tops20 monitor calls manual for a terse but
>>> complete description.
>>
>>That's where I'm looking:
>>http://www.bourguet.org/v2/pdp10/jsys-user/chap6
>>
>>I don't see _anything_ there about message passing; it's all about
>>advisory locking of resources, and the example given is a file.  With a
>>little bit of search-and-replace, this could easily be documentation for
>>POSIX's lockf() function.
>
>ENQ/DEQ are TOPS20 system calls for implementing queues.  I think Morton was
>conflating it with IPCF (inter-process communication facility), which is very
>efficient in that it "moves" data between processes by simply changing their
>respective page maps.

Indeed. It has been 30 years. 

The ENQ-DEQ plus IPCF makes a unique inter-process environment. It shouldn't
be too hard to implement (for an experienced kernel programmer, anyway) in
Linux or BSD.

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161004

Fromscott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
Date2016-03-15 13:23 +0000
Message-ID<J1UFy.7633$0Y.5884@fx23.iad>
In reply to#160997
Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> writes:
>In article <56e7a467.9392215@nntp2.rawbw.com>, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>>On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:15:51 -0500, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>On 14-Mar-16 07:43, Morten Reistad wrote:
>>>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 13-Mar-16 17:00, Morten Reistad wrote:
>>>>>> Just a simple thing. I still miss enq-deq from tops20. This
>>>>>> would be a stellar tool for wide multiprocessing on 100+
>>>>>> processors.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I googled "enq deq tops20", and the first hit sounds almost
>>>>> identical to what POSIX's lockf() does.  What's missing?
>>>> 
>>>> It is a general mechanism that does message passing. This can be
>>>> used to pass pages (mapped from one process to another, very
>>>> efficiently), do locking, pass text strings, and you could quite
>>>> easily build the *n*x pipes on top of it. It is also a proper queue.
>>>> ...
>>>> Look for it in the tops20 monitor calls manual for a terse but
>>>> complete description.
>>>
>>>That's where I'm looking:
>>>http://www.bourguet.org/v2/pdp10/jsys-user/chap6
>>>
>>>I don't see _anything_ there about message passing; it's all about
>>>advisory locking of resources, and the example given is a file.  With a
>>>little bit of search-and-replace, this could easily be documentation for
>>>POSIX's lockf() function.
>>
>>ENQ/DEQ are TOPS20 system calls for implementing queues.  I think Morton was
>>conflating it with IPCF (inter-process communication facility), which is very
>>efficient in that it "moves" data between processes by simply changing their
>>respective page maps.
>
>Indeed. It has been 30 years. 
>
>The ENQ-DEQ plus IPCF makes a unique inter-process environment. It shouldn't
>be too hard to implement (for an experienced kernel programmer, anyway) in
>Linux or BSD.

Unix/linux has had semaphores and shared memory for 40 years.   It is fundamentally
not different from ENQ/DEQ+IPCF.   Today it also has mmap, posix message
queues and posix mutexes and condition variables - which are much more powerful
and flexible than ENQ/DEQ+IPCF.

Burroughs equivalent of IPCF was the C2C (core-to-core) and STOQUE (storage
queues) API's.   C2C was synchronous in that the transfer would occur when
both the sender and receiver were executing C2C send and C2C receive system
calls.   Storage queues were asynchronous (publish-subscribe model).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161008

Fromjmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com>
Date2016-03-15 13:44 +0000
Message-ID<PM00052E169138755F@aca40d5f.ipt.aol.com>
In reply to#160997
Morten Reistad wrote:
> In article <56e7a467.9392215@nntp2.rawbw.com>, Questor <usenet@only.tnx>
wrote:
>>On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:15:51 -0500, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org>
wrote:
>>>On 14-Mar-16 07:43, Morten Reistad wrote:
>>>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 13-Mar-16 17:00, Morten Reistad wrote:
>>>>>> Just a simple thing. I still miss enq-deq from tops20. This
>>>>>> would be a stellar tool for wide multiprocessing on 100+
>>>>>> processors.
>>>>>
>>>>> I googled "enq deq tops20", and the first hit sounds almost
>>>>> identical to what POSIX's lockf() does.  What's missing?
>>>>
>>>> It is a general mechanism that does message passing. This can be
>>>> used to pass pages (mapped from one process to another, very
>>>> efficiently), do locking, pass text strings, and you could quite
>>>> easily build the *n*x pipes on top of it. It is also a proper queue.
>>>> ...
>>>> Look for it in the tops20 monitor calls manual for a terse but
>>>> complete description.
>>>
>>>That's where I'm looking:
>>>http://www.bourguet.org/v2/pdp10/jsys-user/chap6
>>>
>>>I don't see _anything_ there about message passing; it's all about
>>>advisory locking of resources, and the example given is a file.  With a
>>>little bit of search-and-replace, this could easily be documentation for
>>>POSIX's lockf() function.
>>
>>ENQ/DEQ are TOPS20 system calls for implementing queues.  I think Morton was
>>conflating it with IPCF (inter-process communication facility), which is
very
>>efficient in that it "moves" data between processes by simply changing their
>>respective page maps.
>
> Indeed. It has been 30 years.
>
> The ENQ-DEQ plus IPCF makes a unique inter-process environment. It shouldn't
> be too hard to implement (for an experienced kernel programmer, anyway) in
> Linux or BSD.

The entire GALAXY product was based on IPCF.  ACTDAE uses the GALAXY
IPCF interface and RMS-10 for ENQ/DEQ.

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161010

FromPeter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com>
Date2016-03-15 08:12 -0700
Message-ID<939438235.479746811.461494.peter_flass-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org>
In reply to#160997
Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> wrote:
> In article <56e7a467.9392215@nntp2.rawbw.com>, Questor <usenet@only.tnx> wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:15:51 -0500, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>> On 14-Mar-16 07:43, Morten Reistad wrote:
>>>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>>> On 13-Mar-16 17:00, Morten Reistad wrote:
>>>>>> Just a simple thing. I still miss enq-deq from tops20. This
>>>>>> would be a stellar tool for wide multiprocessing on 100+
>>>>>> processors.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I googled "enq deq tops20", and the first hit sounds almost
>>>>> identical to what POSIX's lockf() does.  What's missing?
>>>> 
>>>> It is a general mechanism that does message passing. This can be
>>>> used to pass pages (mapped from one process to another, very
>>>> efficiently), do locking, pass text strings, and you could quite
>>>> easily build the *n*x pipes on top of it. It is also a proper queue.
>>>> ...
>>>> Look for it in the tops20 monitor calls manual for a terse but
>>>> complete description.
>>> 
>>> That's where I'm looking:
>>> http://www.bourguet.org/v2/pdp10/jsys-user/chap6
>>> 
>>> I don't see _anything_ there about message passing; it's all about
>>> advisory locking of resources, and the example given is a file.  With a
>>> little bit of search-and-replace, this could easily be documentation for
>>> POSIX's lockf() function.
>> 
>> ENQ/DEQ are TOPS20 system calls for implementing queues.  I think Morton was
>> conflating it with IPCF (inter-process communication facility), which is very
>> efficient in that it "moves" data between processes by simply changing their
>> respective page maps.
> 
> Indeed. It has been 30 years. 
> 
> The ENQ-DEQ plus IPCF makes a unique inter-process environment. It shouldn't
> be too hard to implement (for an experienced kernel programmer, anyway) in
> Linux or BSD.
> 

Various versions of z/VM have IUCV  and VMCF that do similar things. Now,
hypersockets are also used.

-- 
Pete

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161013

FromAnne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com>
Date2016-03-15 09:36 -0700
Message-ID<87mvpzr94b.fsf@garlic.com>
In reply to#161010
Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> writes:
> Various versions of z/VM have IUCV  and VMCF that do similar things. Now,
> hypersockets are also used.

IBM Pisa science center did SPM for cp67 ... which was superset of IUCV,
VMCF as well as providing software simuilation of terminal messages.

One of my hobbies was providing enhanced operating systems for internal
datacenters ... at various times I supported more of my installations
than all Multics systems that ever existed (a little rivalry between 4th
flr and 5th flr). Lots of internal datacenters moved off cp67 to
standard vm370 product. Some old posts mentioning moving from cp67 to
vm370
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006v.html#email731212
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#email750102
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#email750430

and my internal "csv/vm" internal distribution. One of the things
mentioned in above was I also picked up the port of SPM to vm370
... that was also used for "automated operator" and "service virtual
machines" (coupled with my "autolog" command).

One of my co-workers at science center was also responsible for
the internal network
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#internalnet

and also used for the customer product and basis for the
corporate sponsored BITNET ("EARN" in europe)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/subnetwork.html#bitnet

and even tho vm370 never shipped SPM support ... the original standard
network product shipped with SPM capabilty. This was used for
query&commands between users and the network software and also extending
user-to-user messages across the network. The author of REXX in the late
70s also used SPM to implement multi-user 3270 spacewar game (and with
VNET/RSCS extended to across the internal network). trivia: almost
immediately, some people started writing automated game player bots
... which resulted in changing the game controller to have non-linear
increase in energy use as interval between commands/moves drops below a
certain threashold.

after moving to San Jose Research, I continue internal product
distribution as SJR/VM ... a few past posts:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006u.html#26 Assembler question
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006y.html#35 The Future of CPUs: What's After Multi-Core?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007.html#3 The Future of CPUs: What's After Multi-Core?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010b.html#100 "The Naked Mainframe" (Forbes Security Article)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010o.html#63 They always think we don't understand
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010q.html#41 Old EMAIL Index
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011.html#70 Speed of Old Hard Disks
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013f.html#58 The cloud is killing traditional hardware and software
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015g.html#54 Mainframes open to internet attacks?


past posts mentioning SPM:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2001b.html#32 z900 and Virtual Machine Theory
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006k.html#51 other cp/cms history
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006t.html#47 To RISC or not to RISC
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#8 Why these original FORTRAN quirks?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2006w.html#16 intersection between autolog command and cmsback (more history)
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007.html#11 vm/sp1
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007b.html#14 Just another example of mainframe costs
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007f.html#14 more shared segment archeology
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2007k.html#25 IBM 360 Model 20 Questions
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008g.html#22 Was CMS multi-tasking?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008g.html#41 Was CMS multi-tasking?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008o.html#73 Addressing Scheme with 64 vs 63 bits
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2008s.html#48 New machine code
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2009n.html#67 Status of Arpanet/Internet in 1976?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010h.html#0 What is the protocal for GMT offset in SMTP (e-mail) header time-stamp?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010k.html#33 Was VM ever used as an exokernel?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2010m.html#28 CSC History
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011b.html#89 If IBM Hadn't Bet the Company
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011g.html#49 My first mainframe experience
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011g.html#56 VAXen on the Internet
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2011i.html#66 Wasn't instant messaging on IBM's VM/CMS in the early 1980s
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012d.html#24 Inventor of e-mail honored by Smithsonian
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012d.html#38 Invention of Email
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012e.html#64 Typeface (font) and city identity
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012j.html#7 Operating System, what is it?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2012l.html#36 PDP-10 system calls, was 1132 printer history
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013b.html#77 Spacewar! on S/360
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013i.html#27 RBS Mainframe Meltdown: A year on, the fallout is still coming
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013j.html#38 1969 networked word processor "Astrotype"
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013j.html#42 1969 networked word processor "Astrotype"
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014.html#1 Application development paradigms [was: RE: Learning Rexx]
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014e.html#48 Before the Internet: The golden age of online service
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014g.html#93 Costs of core
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2014k.html#48 1950: Northrop's Digital Differential Analyzer
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015d.html#9 PROFS
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2015g.html#99 PROFS & GML
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2016b.html#17 IBM Destination z - What the Heck Is JCL and Why Does It Look So Funny?

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161001

FromAhem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net>
Date2016-03-15 10:52 +0000
Message-ID<20160315105259.ec31a7b98708046b0264fe76@eircom.net>
In reply to#160996
On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 05:58:09 GMT
usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:15:51 -0500, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org>
> wrote:
> >I don't see _anything_ there about message passing; it's all about
> >advisory locking of resources, and the example given is a file.  With a
> >little bit of search-and-replace, this could easily be documentation for
> >POSIX's lockf() function.
> 
> ENQ/DEQ are TOPS20 system calls for implementing queues.  I think Morton
> was conflating it with IPCF (inter-process communication facility), which
> is very efficient in that it "moves" data between processes by simply
> changing their respective page maps.

	So shared memory or mmap can provide similar efficiency and
capabilities to IPCF and SysV message queues are perhaps similar to
ENQ/DEQ ?

-- 
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN                                      | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161005

Fromscott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
Date2016-03-15 13:27 +0000
Message-ID<a5UFy.7668$0Y.6886@fx23.iad>
In reply to#161001
Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> writes:
>On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 05:58:09 GMT
>usenet@only.tnx (Questor) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 14:15:51 -0500, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org>
>> wrote:
>> >I don't see _anything_ there about message passing; it's all about
>> >advisory locking of resources, and the example given is a file.  With a
>> >little bit of search-and-replace, this could easily be documentation for
>> >POSIX's lockf() function.
>> 
>> ENQ/DEQ are TOPS20 system calls for implementing queues.  I think Morton
>> was conflating it with IPCF (inter-process communication facility), which
>> is very efficient in that it "moves" data between processes by simply
>> changing their respective page maps.
>
>	So shared memory or mmap can provide similar efficiency and
>capabilities to IPCF and SysV message queues are perhaps similar to
>ENQ/DEQ ?
>

mmap, pthread_mutex*, pthread_cond* are more flexible and powerful than IPCF and ENQ/DEQ.

[*] particularly on implementations that support the PTHREAD_PROCESS_SHARED attribute.

semop(2) is probably the closest unix analogue to ENQ/DEQ.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161007

Fromjmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com>
Date2016-03-15 13:43 +0000
Message-ID<PM00052E16878AE672@aca40d5f.ipt.aol.com>
In reply to#160955
Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 14-Mar-16 07:43, Morten Reistad wrote:
>> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>> On 13-Mar-16 17:00, Morten Reistad wrote:
>>>> Just a simple thing. I still miss enq-deq from tops20. This
>>>> would be a stellar tool for wide multiprocessing on 100+
>>>> processors.
>>>
>>> I googled "enq deq tops20", and the first hit sounds almost
>>> identical to what POSIX's lockf() does.  What's missing?
>>
>> It is a general mechanism that does message passing. This can be
>> used to pass pages (mapped from one process to another, very
>> efficiently), do locking, pass text strings, and you could quite
>> easily build the *n*x pipes on top of it. It is also a proper queue.
>> ...
>> Look for it in the tops20 monitor calls manual for a terse but
>> complete description.
>
> That's where I'm looking:
> http://www.bourguet.org/v2/pdp10/jsys-user/chap6
>
> I don't see _anything_ there about message passing; it's all about
> advisory locking of resources, and the example given is a file.  With a
> little bit of search-and-replace, this could easily be documentation for
> POSIX's lockf() function.


The message passing was called IPCF.  ENQ/DEQ was used for data bases
read/write in place.

/BAH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160957

Fromhancock4@bbs.cpcn.com
Date2016-03-14 12:27 -0700
Message-ID<2b76adee-9e0a-457c-9762-950d2b2e226a@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#160931
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 2:33:38 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

> Now, they do have these newfangled things like smartwatches, and, yes, most of 
> them would have chips more powerful than any 360, save, possibly, the /195.

The chip itself might be faster, but do smartwatches have the I/O
capability that S/360 had?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160963

Fromscott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
Date2016-03-14 19:52 +0000
Message-ID<JDEFy.11421$U43.4699@fx41.iad>
In reply to#160957
hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 2:33:38 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> Now, they do have these newfangled things like smartwatches, and, yes, most of 
>> them would have chips more powerful than any 360, save, possibly, the /195.
>
>The chip itself might be faster, but do smartwatches have the I/O
>capability that S/360 had?

Probably.   Note that in the day, 1MB/s was a high-throughput
transfer rate.    PCIe2.0 can do 500 times that, and even
a smart watch might have an internal PCIe 2.0 x1 bus.  PCIe3.0
will do 1GB/sec per lane (16GB/sec for x16, e.g. GPU).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160987

FromMorten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid>
Date2016-03-15 00:37 +0100
Message-ID<uiujrc-nq7.ln1@sambook.reistad.name>
In reply to#160963
In article <JDEFy.11421$U43.4699@fx41.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>>On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 2:33:38 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>
>>> Now, they do have these newfangled things like smartwatches, and, yes, most of 
>>> them would have chips more powerful than any 360, save, possibly, the /195.
>>
>>The chip itself might be faster, but do smartwatches have the I/O
>>capability that S/360 had?
>
>Probably.   Note that in the day, 1MB/s was a high-throughput
>transfer rate.    PCIe2.0 can do 500 times that, and even
>a smart watch might have an internal PCIe 2.0 x1 bus.  PCIe3.0
>will do 1GB/sec per lane (16GB/sec for x16, e.g. GPU).

Even the lowliest SOCs have at least an SD card and a USB 2.0
interface. > 40 MB/sec and 400 Mb/sec, respectively.

-- mrr

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#161003

Fromscott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
Date2016-03-15 13:14 +0000
Message-ID<QUTFy.7548$0Y.460@fx23.iad>
In reply to#160987
Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> writes:
>In article <JDEFy.11421$U43.4699@fx41.iad>,
>Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com writes:
>>>On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 2:33:38 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now, they do have these newfangled things like smartwatches, and, yes, most of 
>>>> them would have chips more powerful than any 360, save, possibly, the /195.
>>>
>>>The chip itself might be faster, but do smartwatches have the I/O
>>>capability that S/360 had?
>>
>>Probably.   Note that in the day, 1MB/s was a high-throughput
>>transfer rate.    PCIe2.0 can do 500 times that, and even
>>a smart watch might have an internal PCIe 2.0 x1 bus.  PCIe3.0
>>will do 1GB/sec per lane (16GB/sec for x16, e.g. GPU).
>
>Even the lowliest SOCs have at least an SD card and a USB 2.0
>interface. > 40 MB/sec and 400 Mb/sec, respectively.

Yup.  Our SoC has two USB 3.0 controllers, 16 SATA 3.0 controllers,
two 40Gb/sec ethernet controllers, four PCI-E 3.0 root complexes
and a high-speed coherent interconnect (56 total lanes).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160964

FromQuadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
Date2016-03-14 12:53 -0700
Message-ID<c0b41d3c-74cc-4948-9135-0b19588466c3@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#160957
On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 1:27:41 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 2:33:38 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

> > Now, they do have these newfangled things like smartwatches, and, yes, most of 
> > them would have chips more powerful than any 360, save, possibly, the /195.

> The chip itself might be faster, but do smartwatches have the I/O
> capability that S/360 had?

I definitely agree. Nowhere near the I/O capability. Not even a keyboard. 
Although I guess you could attach one to the USB port... maybe of the 
smartphone talking to it.

Even a desktop computer doesn't really have the ability to do useful work on 
the level of a far slower mainframe of old. Part of that is perfectly 
legitimate - it's for home use, it doesn't need to be able to, say, print out a 
month's invoices for a major insurance company in a matter of hours - but some 
of it is a loss.

For example, the usual trend of even a desktop PC having only one hard disk 
drive. So the heads have to move back and forth to read from one file and write 
to another. Two hard disk drives, though, are easy enough to have if you want 
them. Four hard disk drives? Not unless its a server!

I don't ask much, but I do think that a little too much is lost. For that 
matter, I'd wish that ECC memory was _standard_ instead of sold at inflated 
prices (i.e. anything more than 12.5% more expensive).

John Savard

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160970

FromJon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu>
Date2016-03-14 16:23 -0500
Message-ID<pJWdnZqq1rRZtnrLnZ2dnUU7-XnNnZ2d@giganews.com>
In reply to#160964
Quadibloc wrote:

> On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 1:27:41 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Sunday, March 13, 2016 at 2:33:38 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> 
>> > Now, they do have these newfangled things like smartwatches, and, yes,
>> > most of them would have chips more powerful than any 360, save,
>> > possibly, the /195.
> 
>> The chip itself might be faster, but do smartwatches have the I/O
>> capability that S/360 had?
> 
> I definitely agree. Nowhere near the I/O capability. Not even a keyboard.
> Although I guess you could attach one to the USB port... maybe of the
> smartphone talking to it.
> 
> Even a desktop computer doesn't really have the ability to do useful work
> on the level of a far slower mainframe of old. Part of that is perfectly
> legitimate - it's for home use, it doesn't need to be able to, say, print
> out a month's invoices for a major insurance company in a matter of hours
> - but some of it is a loss.
> 
Well, maybe.  The 360/30 had a single-byte wide memory with 2.5 us cycle 
time.  So, you could get 300K bytes/second I/O for ALL devices on the 
system, total.  Note that while much I/O was running, the CPU had to be 
locked out to prevent data late errors.

Higher level machines had wider data paths and somewhat faster memories.
We had a 360/50 with LCS (Large Core Storage). It gave you a LOT of memory 
(for the time) but it was DOG slow, 8 us cycle time.  We later got a 360/65 
and knew not to make that mistake again, it had internal memory, and they 
could be interleaved, giving a substantial speed advantage.

But, practically anything you'd use today has at least 100 Mbit Ethernet.
I can't recall EVER seeing a 360 with faster than a 9600 baud modem, and 
those were for RJE point to point connections and cost a real fortune.
(You could set up channel to channel adapters to interconnect 360s, I had 
heard of such stuff, but I never saw one myself.)

The IBM 2314 disk system did 312,000 bytes/second.  Modern SATA disk drivess 
can do actual transfers of 100 MByte/sec or more. The early 2314 had average 
seek time of 85 ms.

I do know, from running the same programs on a modern PC and on a MicroVAX-
II, that the PC is 1000X faster than the MicroVax.  And, I can extrapolate 
that the MicroVAX is definitely a lot faster than a mid-scale 360.

Jon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#160981

FromAnne & Lynn Wheeler <lynn@garlic.com>
Date2016-03-14 17:17 -0700
Message-ID<87k2l44msb.fsf@garlic.com>
In reply to#160970
Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> writes:
> Higher level machines had wider data paths and somewhat faster memories.
> We had a 360/50 with LCS (Large Core Storage). It gave you a LOT of memory 
> (for the time) but it was DOG slow, 8 us cycle time.  We later got a 360/65 
> and knew not to make that mistake again, it had internal memory, and they 
> could be interleaved, giving a substantial speed advantage.

some of the LCS installations instead of treating it like extension to
memory, treated it as a kind of (3090) expanded store ... or simulated
electronic disk. They would simulate read/write transfer operations
moving data back&forth between LCS and "fast memory".

trivia ... 360/67 single processor was basically 360/65 with hardware
address relocation (virtual memory).

360/65 multiprocessor was basically two single processor 360/65 with
memory laid out as single entity ... but both processors had their own
dedicated channels. all channels and both processors would contend for
memory access. SMP I/O would be simulated by having two channel
controllers ... that would be configured at same address on channels
going to the two different processors.

360/67 multiprocessor had multi-ported memory 

original 360/60 & 360/70 were going to have 1mic, interleaved memory.
before they ship, memory is improved to 750ns (8byte) interleaved memory
and the models are changed to 360/65, 360/67, and 360/75.

GA27-2719-2, 
http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/ibm/360/funcChar/GA27-2719-2_360-67_funcChar.pdf

pg29:

Four independent storage buses can be attached to the 2365-12: one from
each CPU and Channel Controller in a full duplex system.

pg36, figure8, model 67-1 has single bus to storage units

pg37, System Data Flow

In a Model 67-2 system, each CPU and each Channel Controller is
connected, with separate bus, to each storage unit in the system. For
example, a system with two CPUs and two Channel Controllers has four
buses. Each bus can connect to as many as eight storage units. Conflicts
that occur among the several buses connected to each storage unit are
resolved at the storage unit.

pg38, figure10, model 67-2 two processors, four buses to storage units

pg47, Instruction Times goes into detail about additional latency added
when storage isn't in the first 512kbytes (1st two storage units).

-- 
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 5 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 14  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web